Judge Holly J. Fujie, Case Number: 21STCV31231, Date: 2023-07-11 Tentative Ruling

The Court has considered the moving and opposition papers. No reply papers were filed. Any reply papers were required to have been filed and served at least five court days before the hearing under California Code of Civil Procedure (“CCP”) section 1005, subdivision (b).

This action arises out of a commercial landlord/tenant relationship. Plaintiffs’ complaint (the “Complaint”) alleges: (1) breach of contract; (2) breach of guaranty; and (3) conversion.

In relevant part, the Complaint alleges: On around April 3, 2019, Plaintiffs and Moving Defendant entered into a lease agreement (the Lease Agreement”) for Moving Defendant to rent a warehouse and manufacturing facility (the “Property”) from Plaintiffs from April 15, 2019 through May 14, 2024. (Complaint ¶ 15, Exhibit A.) As a result of the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on Moving Defendant’s business, Moving Defendant was unable to pay rent for one or more periods, and on or about December 15, 2020, Moving Defendant and Plaintiffs entered into a rent abatement agreement (the “Abatement Agreement”). (See Complaint ¶¶ 23-24, Exhibit C.) On April 12, 2021, Plaintiffs served a notice of termination (the “Notice”) ordering Moving Defendant to vacate the Property on or before June 11, 2021. (Complaint ¶ 28, Exhibit D.) When Moving Defendant vacated the Property on or after July 17, 2021, it removed shelving that was affixed to the Property that belonged to Plaintiffs and refused to return the shelving. (Complaint ¶¶ 30-31.)

On April 12, 2023, Moving Defendant filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings (the “Motion”) on the grounds that the Complaint does not state sufficient facts to constitute a cause of action.

Under CCP section 438, subdivision (c)(1)(B), a defendant may move for judgment on the pleadings if the complaint does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against that defendant. (CCP § 438, subd. (c)(1)(B).) The standard for granting a motion for judgment on the pleadings is essentially the same as that applicable to a general demurrer. (Burnett v. Chimney Sweep (2004) 123 Cal.App.4th 1057, 1064.) The court must assume the truth of all factual allegations in the complaint, along with matters subject to judicial notice. (Wise v. Pacific Gas & Electric Co. (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th. 725, 738.) The court must view the allegations in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. (Edwards v. Centex Real Estate Corp. (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 15, 28.) A pleading which on its face is barred by the statute of limitations does not state a viable cause of action and is subject to judgment on the pleadings. (Hunt v. County of Shasta (1990) 225 Cal.App.3d 432, 440.)

As a preliminary matter, the Court observes that the although the Motion raises arguments regarding the sufficiency of the first and second causes of action, Moving Defendant is not a party to the second cause of action.

The elements of a breach of contract claim are: (1) the contract; (2) the plaintiff’s performance or excuse for nonperformance; (3) the defendant’s breach; and (4) damage to plaintiff therefrom. (Wall Street Network, Ltd. v. New York Times Co. (2008) 164 Cal.App.4th 1171, 1178.)

Moving Defendant argues that the first cause of action fails to state a cause of action because the Complaint was filed prematurely in light of extensions to rent relief provisions in the Los Angeles County Eviction Moratorium. (See RJN, Exhibit 1.) Plaintiffs dispute that the extension applies to Moving Defendant’s commercial tenancy. The Court need not resolve this issue because regardless of the rent moratorium’s applicability, the parties do not dispute that the extension issued in January 2023 provided that commercial tenants with nine or fewer employees had until January 31, 2023 to repay unpaid rent, and commercial tenants with ten or more, but fewer than 100 employees, had until July 31, 2022 to repay unpaid rent. (See RJN, Exhibit 1 at § 6 C.2.) Thus, there is no dispute that the Complaint is currently ripe. Moving Defendant’s arguments about when their rent obligations became overdue therefore do not fully dispose of the cause of action and are not a proper basis for judgment on the pleadings. (See Fire Ins. Exchange v. Superior Court (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 446, 452.)

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SMC_DEPT56@lacourt.org as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org. If the department does not receive an email and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion will be placed off calendar.

Hon. Holly J. Fujie

Judge of the Superior Court